Pages

Saturday, January 23, 2010

It too easy to build castles of pure intellect with foundations on clouds.

A simulation can never be the truth. The truth is what hides that there is no truth indeed.

Reading a post from Nova Spivack, the creator or Twine, made me think for the first time about the possibility that consciousness was as much a fabrication, as space and time. This article triggered a cascade of thoughts in my self, mind, universe, you, ??? (Quantum physics theory makes sense here, it seems impossible to avoid the observer's influence over the phenomena).

I thought that consciousness as well as space and time could be thought as constructed frameworks, artificially generated contexts, and also as boundaries were existing entities can be identified. Actually one common definition of consciousness is a certain context or grouping of objects.

History shows us that the concepts about these fabrications varied among cultures. Greeks believed time was circular, not linear. Space's shape was thought to be of many different forms. Consciousness did not exist in some cultures, instead men thought they where automatically obeying the voices of god according to Julian Jaynes.

It looks like space, time and consciousness were conceived by men. We might have thought that by creating them we where building the firsts universals, but indeed what we were doing was setting the foundations for globalization.

According to Baudrillard the problem with global is that it brings along violence. Global can be characterized by technical efficiency, total organization, integral circulation and the equivalence of all exchanges; it is related to technology, the market, information and tourism. Contrary to it there is the concept of universalization that has to do with human rights, liberty and culture.

He leads us to understand that in a globalized word there are no real sacrifices, which leaves us just in the situation of receiving. Not from God or nature, but by a technological mechanism of generalized exchange and common gratification. Everything is given to us here; we have gained the right to all things. The problem is that eventually we start hating our excess of comfort, our definite accomplishment. It makes us desperate and hopeless because is indeed the result of the realization of our desires.

66 comments:

I'm having trouble following the leap from consciousness to globalization. Consciousness gives us a continuous view of the world around us, what we (each) choose to do with that has numerous outcomes. In a sense, globalization leads to the rapid, if ineffectual, response to Haiti's plight. To address Baudrillard, there is never in life an excess of comfort - as the expression goes, "It's always something", anything from cancer to proximity to petroleum leaf blowers. To me it seems consciousness might be the most basic bulwark of personality armor - the immensely comforting notion that we are at all times in control of our actions. So, definitely agreeing on the constructed part of what you are advancing here.

Fascinating. Yes, it has triggered an avalanche of thoughts and questions:Why are consciousness space and time a fabrication? What is a fabrication? A structured reasoning perhaps. Then, will every theory generated by the thought process (questioning, testing, proving, etc) be a fabrication, or is it a fabrication because the "operating system" is not programmed or equipped to handle the information?

Does that mean the brain is simply incapable of objectivity? Is any measure of objectivity able to be found in reflection? Is reflection a state of consciousness that requires a method of implementation? (such as meditation or spiritual practices) Or is it a natural instinct?

I can not separate my thought from my feelings. I know it is not impossible to do so, it is just very difficult for me, so I simply allow them to intertwine, which may not be a very efficient thing.But for my artwork and creative pursuits it is the method I was trained in. That is, a way of "organizing" perceptions that work efficiently in the creative process. But surely still a construct, a structure, or a fabrication. Darn, it feels very real, though. Ha!

The last paragraph is startling. I could not say "Everything is given to us here" or "we have gained the right to all things" and be telling the truth. There are still so many issues regarding the politics and rules of citizenry. I could say "Some citizens have everything given to them here" but I would probably say "Everything is based on an exchange of some sort". I would not hate an excess of comfort, neither do I admire a lack of it. I am in the middle class.

I do understand the feeling sometimes coming from the completion of a task. The finality of accomplishing something. There is a saying: "Be careful of what you ask for because you just may get it."

In any case, as for myself with artwork, there is an intense focus in the process. When it is completed there may sometimes be a feeling that resembles ennui, the lovely French word for 'longing for something or someone which is part of the past and may no longer exist'. The result is not so much of a passion as the process is/was. Because it was not the result that I was personally involved with, it was the process. The process is itself an accomplishment, such as music being played and the last note ended, it is silent before and beyond the time in which it occurred. (But then my mind still remembers the tune.)

The process then, can not perhaps be isolated for the purpose of investigation, nor adequately defined.

I could, however, say "It feels like a river, a river of light and color that my little paper boat sails over"

Thankyou querida, you have given again a wonderful insightful posting.

It seems there is quite a lot to consider when looking at what space and time are. I was pondering the nature of space and time as artificial constructs of the mind but I was forgetting some obvious things. For long periods of time, we need memory and cognition to understand the passage of time, but we can also see motion through time instantaneously by motion perception without any conscious thought. We can look at a river moving and know it is moving without having to remember what it was like a minute ago, and of course we can percieve space without any thinking at all, but these are still to some extent constructs of the brain and the perceptual apparatus. If you change or damage that then understanding and experience of space and time has to change also.If our understanding of these things is a product of our evolved brains, then what is the reality behind it, if any?

It seems to me that it is fairly easy to understand the idea that what we see may be a fabrication, everyone is familiar with optical illusions, but when it comes to space itself I think there is much less consideration.I have not found detailed information but I have been told that the same areas of the brain are involved in perception of space and also of mental cognitive space. So is space all in the mind?

If it is true that space expanded during the process of the big bang, does that mean that our minds expanded too? How can we say that space expanded if space is a product of our biology? That would only be space as we understand it today but exptrapolated back. As our biology changes will our understanding change too?

After reading this I was once again contemplating the question that has dogged me for many years: Are we alone or are we part of a larger entity/experience that we cannot comprehend in this reality. Are we one entity having several experiences through each of us, thus making us not individual consciousnesses, but rather an expression of one creature? If so, perhaps we are here to integrate into one dominant ego rather than the fragmented egos we perceive ourselves to be? Telepathy would then be the many thoughts of one 'mind' or consciousness. Just yesterday I was thinking about people who seek the truth only to have that truth proven wrong many times over. The seeking could very well be that the only truth there is with no ulitmate destination.

i also wasn't sure about the transition from consciousness to globalization. but this also may be because i can't think of globalization in too abstract a form - in my mind it is inextricably linked with injustice, and colonialism, and the race to the bottom, poverty, racism, and yes, violence.

reading your last paragraph i was reminded of a study on happiness, and i can't remember the reference, which found that once a certain standard of living was attained (not a very high one), having more money and more comfort did not increase people's happiness. instead, once daily life was secure,stable and safe, it was one's job that became directly correlated to happiness - having a rewarding job where one could feel one was making a meaningful contribution became the determining factor. but globalization and the capitalism that drives it do not provide for that, instead they court our greed with the promise of more things, always more.

i disagree with "hating our excess of comfort"... i feel how precarious this comfort is, indeed how very precarious our existence is.what i hate is that the majority doesn't get to share in it, the majority doesn't have rights, liberty, access to culture.

I like the Greek concept of time. Seems correct. But I stumble a bit with the idea that consciousness was "conceived." It just is, isn't it? Although, that idea ottomattiqly made me think of art, which is usually ahead of science: "Life is a tale told by an idiot -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

i'm left thinking that hard learnt lesson... nothing money can buy, brings true happiness. happiness, contentment, peace etc etc is and always will be an internal thing, a spiritual thing, if you may...

Brian miller: Thanks for stepping by, yeah you are right, this postis pretty complicated, actually It took me quite some time till I found it acceptable for posting. You are welcome anytime to mention your ideas, doubts, ..Take care

artSparker:I never thought about the relation between consciousness and globalization, interesting, but it does not look very clear to me either. I agree with your definition of globalization regarding Haiti, I really liked the way you said that.I might be stucked, but I can not figure out what is the concept you wanna express in the sentence where you mention baudillard, If you feel like re-phrasing it, please do. I would call self awarness the you define as consciousness, I think self-awarness is kind of a smaller/more restricted thing than consciousness. But yes, I think we are pretty much in the same page, which makes me feel good, specially the fact that you understood what I meant.

Tipota:I really liked your answer, thanks for it.Regarding the questions:-a possible answer would be that they are because the concept societies had of each one of them chanched drastically trough time. In a different way than science (which seems to evolve by gaining knowledge/prescision).-It is like a human creation/invention/a man made artifice.-Well structured reason might be more related to logic wich is a different kind of stuff. I do not think frabrications are necesarily reasonable/logical.-I would say that yes it would be a fabrication but because it was also created.

I think that objectivity is impossible, just by changing moods we also change our reasoning. Good question about the measure, I would say that yes, but it is mainly a personal intuition. I am not sure it is necesary implemented. But I belive instinct and meditation are the same at a certain point.

I always thought that masterworks could only be done when thoughts and feeling (and maybe also body) are integrated. I think the more separated they are, the less wise/happy the person is. I think it is real, to me it feels more real than the concept of time.

You opened my mind, I think it is an important point trying to understand that everything is an exchange.

I think that maybe that when the artwork is finished it becomes something different separated from process, but that reflects it in its own way. Well by reading the following paragraph I think that we kind of agree about this.

The word ennui is a hole/complete poem.

Regarding process and separation I think more and more that there are no clear boundaries, (they are fuzzy) among this things, also that they are part of the same thing.

I love the way you express things, you are such a talented writter, some of your sentences produce me strong feelings, like the previous to last paragraph.

JYou made a great point by stating that we need memory. I thought about that before but I did not wanted to include it cause it would make the post even more confussing. I am not so sure about cognition, have to think about it. <We need memory,Great point. Very interesting what you say in this paragraph, you might wanna consider the movie phenomena, which is that when the pictures that are shown in sequence reach a certain velocity we stop percieving them as isolated and start seing it as a continous thing, montion, not a serial exposition of pictures. Maybe reality can be defined by the second quote on top of this post.

I agree that space at least intuitively seems to be different, but think for example that it can be blended and also that there can be holes in the universe.

Well if we talk from a neuroscientific perspective I think you are correct regarding perception and brain areas; And that not only space but almost everything else resides in the mind.

I do not think the minds expanded to, and that maybe expansion is not the same in space and in the mind. Well I think that you can not say that from certain viewpoints like the subjecive one. Maybe you should explain or refer to it from another plane or even from a meta-level. I think it can change.

val:I pretty much belive in that kind of budhist view, but I also think that they might be both at the same time. Did you by any chance read a theodore stugeon book that talks about Gaia (which is everything, is like the universe) and you have self, and groups of self, it is very interesting how this sci-fi book talk about this subject, you might wanna check it, dough I must confess I read it when I was arround 15 so maybe if I read it know I would not consider it as interesting. I liked playing with the idea that they are the expression of one creature, this also reminds me of a book which I consider one of the best I read, called fiction's where the first short story describes a world that works exactelly like that (The story is called something like ukbar, tlon and orbis tertulis).

Jon:Thanks a lot you are so kind! I am willing also to catch up with your blogs.I was trying to understand what are the main principles of existential phenomenology, cause I do not have it really clear, I read some kierkgard and heiddeger long time ago, but I do not grasp the concept quite well (if you do not mind I would like to know what is your idea about it)I liked a lot what you said about body and mind separation, it is wonderful, I think you pointed to one of the fundamental mistakes we tend to make while reasoning, which is that there is no absolute separation (if there separation)among the two.

manuela:I think I was not very clear about the transition, maybe because I do not fully fully understand it. I think that creating/inventing a hard concept of what consciousness is,an arbitrary one, leads us to missunderstand life, we can not see the flow that way so we try to change/adapt the reality to that why we see it, that is more rigid and discriminatory. (I will keep thinking how to formulate this better)

I guess we do have different thinking styles, which makes things interesting, cause I am a pretty abstract thinker, maybe due to my profession. But I see we have the same idea about globalization.

Interesting, I'll try to find the study. I completelly agree (intuitively) that making a meaningfull contribution is what makes us a happy person, and I would add that the contribution might have to be related to increased humanity well being (happiness).Thanks a lot for sharing what you think!

Linda S. Socha:Thank you so much for your fabulous compliment, I know it is is very hard to express this kind of things in a clear way. I will be more than happy to see you back bringing your light.Glad you liked the art!

Linda S. Socha:Thank you so much for your fabulous compliment, I know it is is very hard to express this kind of things in a clear way. I will be more than happy to see you back bringing your light.Glad you liked the art!

otto:Maybe it will exist anyway, we can not be sure, but I do belive that it makes it worst.

Glad you like the circular think. Yeah, you are right in what you say about concieved, it just is, but we concieved even dough it is. I also relate it to art, and like a lot what you say, thanks for sharing that great quote.

Some of existential phenomenology is still very dualistic in terms of a body/mind separation. I've heard these described as transcendental phenomenology (Kierkgard, Husserl). However, an author who picked up some of the threads from Heidegger but moved in the direction of embodiment (and away from mind/body separation) is Merleau-Ponty. His book Phenomenology of Perception will definitely be something you'll dig into -- there's a copy on google books. His conception of the body-subject is constructed around the idea of an intertwining of many things normally distinguished as divided, inner and outer space for example. A quote you may like:

"The theory of the body schema is, implicitly, a theory of perception. We have relearned to feel our body; we have found underneath the objective and detached knowledge of the body that other knowledge which we have of it in virtue of its always being with us and of the fact that we are our body."

Mariana, I hope you are well and feeling better. I love this post because, as you probably have guessed by now, I am going to draw a parallel between what you are saying on one level and say something about what the shamans think :)

Consciousness is definitely shaped and constructed by man, creating the myth of man as we perceive it. Yeah globalization must bring with it its share of violence, because man's instinctive nature is to oppress and dominate the other more than it is to embrace the other, a conscious process rather than instinctive.

It was really nice to see you over at my blog, Mariana. I was afraid my previous silly bitchy jealousy chased you away ;)

HI Mariana, you are right, I am using consciousness to mean self-awareness. I have a abiding fondness for Jaynes' bicameral mind, which I think we are not that far from (some of these politicians appear to be hearing voices).

Baudrillard's statement seems so general as to lack meaning. Everyone makes sacrifices, everyone suffers, and there is no end to desire. This is a specious argument. Assuming there are people who have what they want and look around, there is then a choice - depending on character, the person concerned can be unhappy and consequently unpleasant, or she/he can move up in Maslow's hierarchy and find work that gives his life meaning. There are a lot of people like Greg Mortensen in the world.

i don't believe the concept of a global society in and of itself breeds violence and discontent, which are the very things it was meant to inhibit and finally end. (GATT)

But what never seems to fall out of the equation is mans propensity for individual, corporate and governmental greed. All of which affects and effects the group consciousness.

I am of a mind that wealthier nations need share in that wealth but at the same time when we do that we also decrease the ability for the citizens of the wealthier nations to produce individual wealth which then can lead to internal strife.

To say that man invented consciousness I don't think is correct exactly but to say we have created artificial boundaries in our thinking is spot on.

We could divide up the pot of all wealth on a per capita basis but then like you say that would lead to indolence and less satisfaction because as beings we need to produce and feel good about that production.

The key and it really is the key is in finding that balance where each persons production is valued by the use of what is produced.

No athlete or entertainer should be paid millions while a farmer who supplies food for his community is paid a few dollars.

Same with bankers and politicians, what exactly do they produce except for paper shuffling that removes wealth from one class into another. They should be paid least of all.

Hello, I so hope you are feeling well again. I liked the Klee illustration: Hitler rejected his abstract music inspired art, believing that it was against the consciousness of Nazi philosophy. Somehow, the picture seems very right for a post debating the manufacturing of consciousness.

"Greeks believed time was circular, not linear." What a beautiful and interesting concept. There's something very poetic (and I think true?) about time moving in a circle. Does history repeat? One need only look back at history to find an affirmative answer.

wow-- there's a lot to ponder here, not only in the post itself but also in the many thoughtful comments. I suppose I am fine agreeing with the constructed nature of time, space and consciousness,that people do this constructing,that this is of necessity grounded in the contexts within which they find themselves, that this connection to the context is itself grounded in the constructing of meaning of that same context. My own theoretical biases of phenomenology and semiotics dispose me to accept a primacy of embodied consciousness which makes meaning in and about contexts. Not to suggest that consciousness must be seen as contained, but that it interacts and makes meaning largely within embodied exchanges. The idea of dis-embodied imaginaries or meaning makings makes the notion of time, space, consciousness as constructed more tentative for me, and I know that this is also a concept you are exploring. Baudrilliard has a gutsy if gloomy social commentary, kind of a reverse Nietszche, in a way....you and your commenters have given me much to reflect upon.

Jon:I agree about the dulalistic problem between body and mind. I heard about this guy merlo, actually I am adding the book you recommend to my bookmarks,

Thanks a lot for taking your time to explain this!.By the way I would recomend you to hear a talk I have on my youtube favourites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzzMfOkQC6g that also addressed the lack division of the human from other humans going trough the language topic (which I consider to be pretty related to the brain), (my account is marianasoffer7272) He gives a consice and interesting talk about it. I find it pretty related to the fantastic quote you copied from him here.

Harmonie22:Thanks for the god wishes, and I like that you can get ahead of my thoughts. You are pretty smart.

We agree on the construction point, but I am not so sure on your position about why globalization brings violence, I do not think it is in the instinct the problem, I guess violence emerges as a defence from the impossed, limiting and opressing constructed realities. But I agree that we desagree here anyway, and I consider your-s an interesting response also.You never scared me, I like a lot honest comments, also sarcastic ones, I just had not got enough time to be arround checking other-s peoples blogs sadly.

artSparkerGlad I could understood what you meant and clarify my point, this is a conversation that enrich us both I think.I like a lot when you say that things that are too general lack meaning, is so true, se should never forget that. I am afraid to tell you that your argument it perfect, even dough it invalidates what I stated on my post.I have to rethink what you say thoroughly, but yes, it is too easy to say thinks like that without thinking deeply about its veracity and real life implications. This will remain in my thoughts in search for a deeper understanding-validity evaluation of this argument.Thanks a lot for being so sharp.

PI: what you talk about here is very inspiring for me, I want to thank you a lot for your first comment, which is really encouraging

PI:Thanks a lot for the lovelly poem, it really moved me, I think is so full of truth, that it is scary, cause lets be honest, it is not easy to face reality as it is. So besides being brave it has an amazing clarity in which it reflects reality.

The walking man:Pleasure seeing you here.Well artSparker already told something like that, and I had to admit to her that she might be right, that his argument does not support itself, which is making me rething the hole post (I am glad I am learning so much from you guys).

Regarding your idea of consciousness, I think you are right, there are two things, like in semiotics, the signifier(ing) and the significant (I hope you understnd what I mean here), so the problem is believing the constructed one is the only truth. That is when things start failing.

I liked a lot what you say about the key for balance, I will bear that in mind. It is a very wise statment.An honor reding you here

Eshuneutics: Thanks for the good wishies, and I am also really glad you liked the painting, I also belive it is a great one. Well iut is also very interesting what you say about hittler and consciousness, I think that is a clear example about what misconsceptions or wrong definition can lead to.Take care friend

poeticgrin:Yes, I liked that idea a lot too, I think those where the pre-socratic greeks, they have other interesting and differnt concepts of reality that are woth exploring too. But it is so true that there is a certain circularity about time, I mostly think of it as a kind of spiral indeed, which slowly aproches the center, the perfect point, but never gets there.

harlequin:Yeah, comments actually made me change some of my beliefs and put others in doubt, which I consider a great think to happen.I talked a little bit about the problem with this constructions when I reply to walking man, which is indeed in agreement with part of what you say here. I think is brillant how you open this with your idea of meaning, embodiment and interaction among them, I belief you have the key for the answer there, I really think it goes that way, you considered the hole picture. Thanks a lot for oppening my mind.Glad we made you think, and thanks for your great contribution.

May I suggest that the creation of these ideas is really an expression of the dominance of visual logic? We see space. We see things change in quantifiable ways, and the seer, of course, is our consciousness. Much of what we think is/are simply re-constructs of seeing. The notion of beginning and end, for example.

Blind people's thoughts are largley re-structured by their seeing social network at a very early age, which is an interesting re-creation of personal reality.

I shared these views previously too, with you. The world, the way it is today, maybe was not supposed to be this way. Over a period of time, every body picked up a paintbrush and painted the world, the way they wanted it to look.

Maybe the Good and Evil, the Moral and Immoral of today are a lot different than what they were supposed to be !! Who knows ??

I think you have a very good point about our concepts based on seeing. Indeed is the input organ that has the most information brought to the brain, so probably our way of thinking is heavily influence by visualization or visual perception. This reminded me of a theory of how language evolves and where is grounded, that states that all that we say are indeed metaphors or analogy based statemnts, that emerge from our most basic input/perception/body functions. I wrote about it in a previous post, If you want I can search for it.For example we refer to a point in time as being far, same as we do with places in space.I would like to know about blind people way of function regarding this, I guess that could clarify my ideas or at least add a new dimension to my limited view of this.Lovely thoughts, interesting ones, thanks for sharing them.

Hi Mariana, yes I'm having a head-scratching session on this one - and while I do, tell me, the image, is it a Klee? I don't know it, but it looks like one, except for the colour, which strikes me as unusual for him.

Dave King:Yes my friend I swear it is a klee, I thought that maybe he was being influenced by kandinsky search and experiment with colors at a time, I think they it might have happend during the bauhaus movement era. But I owe you some more research regarding it, all I can tell is that I love it.I know it is pretty harsh this poem, but please feel free to express your thoughts, maybe reading some of the comments and my replies would help you get inside this hole world that I wanted to plasmate on this post, which ended up pretty messy.hugs my friend

Interesting post, Mariana. A confluence of concepts, linking time and space, consciousness and globalisation. It's left me a little dizzy! (In a good way, I think!)

I find this paragraph very interesting, and I admire the way you've linked your ideas here:

"I thought that consciousness as well as space and time could be thought as constructed frameworks, artificially generated contexts, and also as boundaries were existing entities can be identified. Actually one common definition of consciousness is a certain context or grouping of objects."

Often the metaphor of a 'grid' is used to refer to these frameworks of space/time or consciousness, but that's not really poetic enough for me!

I like this idea of consciousness as a context within contexts. Contexts forever overlapping, blending...

Stu:Thank you very much for your lovelly compliments, also an honour to have you arround here.

I belive I did pretty unclear the link, but there are some explanations about that done from my readers that I guess might clarify it, or maybe I did not tied the knot exactelly as I meant like. Sorry for that, but at least I wanted to share some of my thoughts.

But I am so happy that you understood the core paragraph and liked it. And it is good to know that they can be called grids.

ARtSparker said:I also think it's different if words appear in questions rather than as (sweeping) statements. It's when there's a verbal monolith that there is falsity I think...because the nature of existence, globalized and individual, is always in motion.